Govinda Menon, J.-I am in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by my learned brother though I would like to state the reasons for arriving at that conclusion in my own way.

It is clear from the evidence of P.W.2 that the first defendant and his father were carrying on grocery business in Mannargudi and in another village befor they became divided. Under the partition the old grocery business with all its assets and liabilities were allotted to the share of the father and the first defendant was given for his share five acres and 70 cents of land charged with a debt of Rs. 700. Even before the partition, the first defendant had started a business of his own which he continued afterwards. This business consisted of importing goods like areca-nuts, etc. from Ceylon, Burma and Singapore. The question is whether this business can be styled as the ancestral trade of defendants 2 to 4. The learned Subordinate Judge was of the opinion that as the old grocery business which had been carried on by the father of the first defendant had not been continued by the first defendant after the partition, it cannot be said that he was carrying on an ancestral business with the result that the shares of defendants 2 to 4, are not liable for the debt relying upon the observations of Venkataramana Rao, J. in Soundararajulu v, Shanmugam1, that in order that the business should not be considered to be new it must be a continuation or revival of the old business and that when another business is started by a manager which had absolutely no connection with the old business the fact that the business started was of the same nature as the old business cannot be considered to be an ancestral business at all. Reference had also been made to the decision in Rattamma v. Narayana Rao2, as well as to the well known case, Benares Bank v. Hari Narain3.

How far the observations of their Lordships in the Benares Bank’s case3can be extended to a case where a joint Hindu family has trade as its kulachara and one of; the members of that family instead of participating in the joint family business starts a special business of his own and incurs debts in the conduct of that separate business is a point for decision. The question for consideration is whether his sons can be made liable for the debts incurred in regard to the running of that business. From the judgment of Sir Dinshah Mulla, in the Benares Bank’s case3it becomes clear that the subject-matter of consideration was Theka business and also building contracts under the Public works Department started by a member of a joint Hindu family which evidently was not a trading family. The observations at pages 570 and 571 are significant and nowhere is there any mention that the kulachara of that family was trade. If for example a member of a Bania caste or such trading communities as Nattukottai Chettiars or Arya Vysias begins a business, apart from the family business and incurs debts in the course of the conduct of that business I do not think that the sons of such a member can be absolved from the liability for the debts incurred by their father in the course of his new venture.

It is clear from Manu Chapter VIII placitum 41 and Yajnyavalkya 360-361 that those law-givers considered trading families in a different perspective. This has been noticed by Chandavarker, J. at page 77 in Raghunathji Tarachand v. The Bank of Bombay4. In my view a distinction has to be drawn between families which thrive and depend solely and purely upon agriculture or the learned professions and those whose members are totally devoted to the calling of trade or commerce. In the latter case it cannot be said that if one of the members starts a business, his sons cannot be made liable for the debts incurred by their father. It may be that a member of a money-lending family may embark upon a different kind of commercial transaction, for example, the starting of a spinning and weaving mill or some other industrial concern. Can it b